Say I was to have a star, with a mass of around 500 or so of our sun's mass. When it dies, and it will, how large would the supernova be? Would it even have one, or would the mass of it all skip the outward explosion stage and become a black hole directly?How would one figure this shit out anyways? Could one figure out the size of the stellar boom for n masses of sun?

>>10974074The upper limit to a star's mass is about 100 solar, since any higher than that, fusion goes so fast, and the temperature gets so high, that radiation pressure prevents further accretion. All stars near that upper limit form black holes at their cores when they die in hypernova explosions.

>>10974747I think that is an insult to geniuses. Geniuses work even harder than anyone because they are usually pressured by a sense of duty to use their exceptional intelligence to the best of their ability. Imagine racking your brain for years desperately trying to prove a conjecture, knowing you will probably fail and die in obscurity. Puts the ol 9-5 to shame.

>particles exist in a probabilistic superposition>the probability field of any particle extends across the entire universe>in an infinite universe, the probability of a particle being very very far away from the center of the field inevitably adds up to 100% (or 99.99999...)>all matter would instantly disintegrate across the cosmos in the universe was infiniteHow is this even a debate in physics?

>>10972055Hand written math expressions? We would maybe finally get usable photo to math for "higher" math (I'm undergrad so I know shit about higher math but you know what I mean). It would be so nice if I could just take a photo of my notes and export them into latex.

Im not a mathematician or a logician, but i do keep hearing a lot on how Gödel's theorem placed a blade of Damocles above mathematics, but im not sure how his theorem could have such a destructive impact on math. Could anyone elaborate?

>>10973896>Let's now assume that RH is undecidableif RH is undecidable, then in particular we can't disprove it. which means it is impossible to find nontrivial zeros outside the critical line. but if there were nontrivial zeros outside the critical line, we would eventually find them. therefore there aren't nontrivial zeros outside the critical line and RH is true

>>10973896>but doesn't mean it is a god or godlikeI don't quite know what godlike means desu.

>and it was pretty clumsy of you to misunderstand my intentions with it too. I wouldn't call it clumsy, as after thoughtful consideration I still don't get it. So maybe I'm more than clumsy.

>Let's also assume that RH is true. I.e. that there are no nontrivial zeros outside the critical line. Hence, no matter complex number we pick inside the critical strip outside the critical line, it will never be zero. Let's now assume that RH is undecidable. This means there exists no formal proof for this fact. It is still a fact. We just don't know it.I think there's a notion in which, when it's undecidable, it makes no sense to say that either is true. It's not clear to me that "Let's say 'in reality there is no complex number such that the zeta function is zero on the strip" is a sensible notion if it's undecidable. I think this is at the crux of the matter here. It's also part of the Platonical stance to think of mathematical inquiries having truth values despite no conscious being nor formal system being able to relate to it.I know this a kind of formalist view, but we don't have to agree.

>>10969220Saying the incompleteness theorems have disastrous consequences for mathematics as a whole is like saying the disagreement and various paradoxes apparent in the realm of Quantum physics means force x mass doesn't equal acceleration.

People are always whining about photovoltaic cells requiring rare minerals that are environmentally unfriendly to mine and whatever so why aren't we just doing solar energy through the mirror method?is photovoltaic really more efficient than just heating up some water with the suns heat and running that shit through a turbine, this method just requires some good ol' fucking steel and idk what elselike yeah sure this method isn't usable for smaller applications but it is very much usable for big power plants which ought to make up the majority of solar power production anyhow

>>10974295>Watches anime but relates to the villain>99% of all anime villains are just "heh, I'll wipe out ur whole village because I feel like it". >Becomes an ascended God for no reason>0(zero) character depth or developmentWeW

There's clearly very little understanding of orbital mechanics and too much political whining in this thread. Why don't you guys go ask your parents if they'll let you buy Kerbal Space Program and then come back?

>>10974656If this thread is really full of experts then why does it take 25 posts before OP gets the very basic answer to his simple question: it takes as much time as any conventional technique ~7 months

>>10972274Depends on how big the rail gun is. The problem is getting the payload into space. The advantage is that you would only need propellant to get to LEO and rendezvous with the gun. The gun provides the delta v to intercept Mars, the remaining propellant inserts it into orbit. Probably not much faster but maybe more efficient.

>>10969407> be a dirt sucking delivery man> deliver to the home of a wealthy family> woman comes to the door dressed like a thot but lacking any physical traits that push her above a 5> see this post a few days later implying the genetic superiority of aristocrats by claiming that common folk are inferior

I'm not sure of the progress on growing animals/people in vats (there was that calf grown or partially grown in a bag that people were posting here several months ago) but I was wondering whether when that technology becomes viable, if it's before 3d printing organs is viable, whether we would grow humans in vats that were altered to be braindead to be harvested to organs.

Also why don't we do that now, or at least study and research it? The only ethical concerns would be to the mother who would be needed for the first 9 months.

>>10974296Pretty sure ethics and support are the main reason, but realistically and scientifically flawed. You could grow a human, but humans are vastly complex. Even between two humans, transplanting organs requires very specific properties or else the transplanted organ will just get deleted and kill the patient. Unless you could somehow alter clone humans to perfect match the necessary terms for a transplant then it wouldn't work. It basically comes down to being a lot of work before it's even feasible and no one will want to spend the time on that even if it does potentially have a lot value in the end.

tl;dr I want to take someone's last name and use the letters to form a compound. Doesn't NEED to be in order because of....

I want to take said plausible compound and make one of the 2d models of the compound so I can 3D print it, and then cast it as a wall hanger.

With knowing only a passing amount (the required in uni for mech eng degree) about molecular chemistry, is there a resource or "calculator" I can use to generate a 2d model of a compound after balancing it?

It's very important that the end result be plausible as a compound, not common, not anything, just correct. It's a gift for someone in the chemical field.

>>10974302so organ transplant is way more specific than just blood type or something. Is there anything you can select for at the embryo / sperm level to hit specific groups of potential recipients? Barring that, aren't doner lists usually in the thousands or more anyways? Why not just make a braindead human and then find a match for them on the list because surely someone will come close and at the very least that shrinks the list. As for the feasibility, I can't find any sort of experiments done or research into the idea, can it really be said to be too difficult if no one has seriously tried?